Meat on Good Friday...Mortal Sin?

[frangiuliano115]

I guess I get a little confused in all this. The scenario in my original post happening on a Friday in July before the law was terminated by the Church would have resulted in the man’s soul going to Hell. The day the law was terminated the same scenario occurring would not result in him going to Hell?

I understand that the sin lies in disobeying the Church however I get lost in the process.

I’m with you Wannano.
I think God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

What gives??
I’ll wait for the answer too.

 

[frangiuliano115]

No. ‘Eating steak’, per se, is not mortal sin. If there is sin here, it comes from a different consideration.

Some here have given particular interpretations, but they leave out some important notions or conflate the salient issues. Some simply reply ‘yes’, others ‘no’, and still others have attempted to help you understand what the church teaches. Yet, you continue to ask, so it seems that more explanation is necessary.

First, there is a difference between ‘grave matter’ and ‘mortal sin’. You seem to be aware of this, by framing things up in terms of ‘full knowledge’ and ‘deliberate consent’. Yet, you seem to want to caricature this situation as “Catholics think that eating steak condemns a person to hell.” :nope:

This caricature seems to want to ridicule the Church by trivializing her teachings. I assure you, the teaching isn’t as absurd as you make it out to be. Let’s look at it in detail…

You pose the situation as something that seems trivial: ‘eating meat on Good Friday’. Let me ask you a question: what was the sin of Ananias and Sapphira? Was it really simply that they held money back? Or, was it that they bore false witness to the Church and their faith? That is, the capital sin that they committed was that they claimed to be Christian, but refused to live out their faith through their actions.

In Mt 16:19, Jesus tells Peter (alone) that what he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven, and what he binds on earth will be bound in heaven. Therefore, what Peter binds, God binds. So, when one disobeys Peter’s authority… whose authority is he really disobeying?

As some have mentioned, the rule of Lenten abstinence is a rule of the Church – that is, it is a rule instituted by those to whom Peter has passed the mantle of authority (see Acts 1 for a Scriptural example of ‘apostolic succession’). Therefore, one who disobeys the rule of abstinence… disobeys what is bound in heaven.

Now, on the face of it, your story seems like a rather trivial misstep that is punished harshly. Yet, by your telling of it, the person has said, “I know what the Church teaches, and I know that what the Church binds is bound by Jesus… but hey – I’m gonna disobey here and eat meat anyway.” In other words, what the person is saying isn’t simply “I want a nice steak”, but rather, “Jesus, I really don’t care that this is what you’re holding me to – I’m gonna do what I want, simply because I want it.”

So, you tell me: do all who merely cry out “Lord, Lord!” inherit the kingdom of heaven, or are there those who cry out “Lord, Lord!” and do not enter into the kingdom of heaven?

Hi Gorgias
I highlighted and underlined a paragraph up there.
You say Annanias and Sapphira sinned because they didn’t live out their Christian life.
Do any of us? Does that mean we’re all going to hell?

Also, you forgot to explain the difference between grave matter and mortal sin. I think.
Thanks.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Yes, once the law was terminated, eating meat no longer constituted a mortal sin of disobedience since there was no law to disobey. When the law was in place, disobedience would constitute a mortal sin. You can’t disobey a law that doesn’t exist. It’s okay that you get confused by this, I used to be quite confused by this as well.

I still am.
Did God say not to eat meat on Fridays?
Did He change His mind?

 

[frangiuliano115]

I am sorry you were accused of trying to ridicule the Church by your question. You are not Catholic and trying to understand a concept that is, frankly, actually very badly understood and applied by many Catholics, especially it seems to me in the United States, as the responses here show. I find several American priests writing on this subject even to provide commentary that seems to miss the key phrases in Paenitemini, the apostolic constitution by the Blessed Paul VI which is dispositive.

The fact that the prescriptions of ecclesiastical law regarding penitence are specifically declared to be totally reorganised means that one cannot properly look back to what “was” in making a determination as to what “is” since the legislator is informing us that what “was” has been displaced.

The last sentence of the quote from Paenitemini above is what is also crucial. It is the substantial observance that binds gravely…not the individual instance. If the hypothetical person in your scenario has otherwise kept the observance of fast and abstinence during Lent, except for this one failure on Good Friday, he has substantially observed the Lenten discipline of fast and abstinence.

The one caveat would be that if he rushed into the steakhouse to eat the steak motivated solely by utter hatred of ecclesiastical authority, that could reach the conclusion you propose…of him committing mortal sin. It is an absurd premise and more the sort of anecdote moral theologians talk about in a light-hearted moment at an academic gathering than anything one will likely encounter in the “real world”.

You had earlier asked me to weigh in on your scenario…I resisted because, as written, the scenario is a bit problematic in its premises. But given how the responses have gone, I see I should weigh in. So…

**In fact, one act of eating meat when there is an obligation to abstain is not a mortal sin. All he has done is failed to observe the abstinence in this instance. Assessment of moral guilt by him – assuming his conscience has been properly formed – and by the priest hearing his confession – trusting that he is acquainted with the governing norms – would have to look beyond the one instance and to a variety of other factors in assessing what sin, if any, was committed and invites absolution.

No, the Church would never teach such a thing. **

From the perspective of moral theology, one must differentiate between an act which contravenes a disciplinary measure on the one hand and an act which is, for example, in violation of a divine commandment on the other hand. This is anything but equivalent to dying in the classic in flagrante delicto moment.

The fundamental value also has to be understood in order to understand what is derived from it:

• The need to do penance is from divine positive law. In other words, God has said it and therefore we must comply with it.
• The ecclesiastical law is there to provide to the faithful, especially those who are not theologians, guidance in how to fulfill the obligation imposed by God to do penance.

What you say where I have highlighted and underlined makes a lot of sense.
I’m glad you posted this because many on this thread seem to feel otherwise, such as one poster, which I should not mention , for example. Very harsh. God is good. It seems there is much disagreement on this thread.

I still have difficulty understanding how something could be not okay to do at one time and then become okay to do. But I’m not asking for an answer. It must be a law of the church.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I’m sorry for all the posts.
I live in a different time zone.

FG

 

[TonyBS]

Hi Tony
I think of you still.
I love you as a brother
God is mighty

Always enjoy your comments, especially about Hell You are also Much loved as a True brother in Christ, the fairness of your heart sings to me.

I would think that as this is not a law given by Jesus, I think it would come down to a personal choice. If one is in the church and they have made it law, then one would be obliged to partake of that law. It is a matter of ones Faith.

There is a spiritual intent behind any fasting law. The intent is for us to freely submit to subdue the promprings of self. This intent must be the driving force of our actions to implement Gods Laws.

I actually gave up red meat over a year ago now, mainly because I moved to a country where it is not viable to eat it. So stayed with a bit of chicken and fish but mainly vehitables and fruits with bread.

I have found wirh doing the Bahai fast of 19 days, that if you do it willingly it is really not that hard and the blessings of Faith are many. Self has to be subdued and it is a daily task. What a bounty it is!

God bless always and regards Tony

 

[TonyBS]

I still am.
Did God say not to eat meat on Fridays?
Did He change His mind?

I smiled when I saw this original OP post as it shows how disconnected we are with the reality of our world.

There are many who have no choice of what they eat and meat is not even considered.

Where I currently live rice with a little fish is all that can be afforded, occasionally it has a bit of greens put with it.

Many parts of the world can not even partake of meat and we would find it hard to not have it for a few hours!

I guess these views are a lot easier to have once living amongst poverty, maybe all of us should spent a couple of years in poverty so we can appreciate what we have been given.

I think the part of the world that is not 3rd world, really needs to consider how blessed they have been not to be born into poverty, but is it a blessing…

I would consider it not to be, poverty seems to keep a connection with God that is impossible to server.

God bless everyone

Regards Tony

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I think you meant “church.” Do you know the difference? I think it’s important. Please find out.​

So if I’ve done everything right and then I eat this meat and I die, I go to hell?
This is a very strict God we’re serving. No wonder a lot of people are deciding to leave the churches…
I read in the bible that we go to heaven because Jesus died for us. We are to obey the commandments - that’s for sure. But Jesus will protect us from harm.​

I still am. Did God say not to eat meat on Fridays? Did He change His mind?

I meant Church.

Yes, once you commit a mortal sin, you have essentially decided to choose Hell over Heaven, notwithstanding your life’s good works. You lose sanctifying grace when you commit mortal sin so you cannot enter Heaven. When Our Lord said for us to obey His Commandments, that included obeying the Church which obliges us to fast & abstain on the appointed days.

God did not say for us to not eat meat on Fridays, but He gave the Church the power to oblige us to abstain and the Church has the power to change these disciplines when necessary. Abstaining from meat on Fridays is a discipline of the Church, not a precept of God, so God didn’t change His mind when the Church changed the discipline. His precept of obeying the Church is the same in both disciplines.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I meant Church.

Yes, once you commit a mortal sin, you have essentially decided to choose Hell over Heaven, notwithstanding your life’s good works. You lose sanctifying grace when you commit mortal sin so you cannot enter Heaven. When Our Lord said for us to obey His Commandments, that included obeying the Church which obliges us to fast & abstain on the appointed days.

God did not say for us to not eat meat on Fridays, but He gave the Church the power to oblige us to abstain and the Church has the power to change these disciplines when necessary. Abstaining from meat on Fridays is a discipline of the Church, not a precept of God, so God didn’t change His mind when the Church changed the discipline. His precept of obeying the Church is the same in both disciplines.

Hi
Thanks for your reply. I’m very confused.
Don Ruggero’s reply and his post on no. 64 says I would not go to hell because God is not that strict. You say I would. I’m glad YOU’RE not God!

Regarding the word Church:
Here is what youi had posted originally:

Originally Posted by Confiteor Deo View Post
Yes, he would have condemned himself to Hell because of his disobedience to the Church.

So now I’m confused even more. You say that you really did mean Church.
So, the disobedience is not to the church down in Rome, the magesterum, but the disobedience is to the Church, the Body of Christ. Is this correct?

I do understand what you say regarding Jesus giving power to the Apostles and so also to the church. With a small c.

But if the church (small c) could change its mind about something - how could I be sure it’s not going to change its mind about something else? And how could I trust that I’m being told the truth at any given time and about any given matter?

To me this seems to be a big problem. Which is why I like to stay with the Laws God gave. The moral Laws that is. The ceremonial and civil laws have been abolished.

I appreciate your reply.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness
It’s very sad that one cannot know if he’s going to hell.
It seems to me to be a very important part of one’s life.
Can we not be sure that we are going to heaven if we are trusting in the Lord Jesus to save us?
I asked this of Fra’ Lorenzo in a sanctuary where I go for adult catechism and he told me we could be sure of our salvation IF we are at the foot of the cross.
I’m at the foot of the cross every day and do not look to myself or anything I do or do not do for my salvation.
Some laws are God-made.
Some laws are man-made.
God gave Moses the 10 commandments on Mt. Sinai and then man started to add to them. Read the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus really well sometime. Do you think GOD made up all those rules??
And so it was with the Apostles. Jesus gave them authority. But way back then they weren’t too concerned about eating meat on Fridays.

1. Jesus said it is more important what comes out of the mouth than what goes in.
   Mathew 15:11

Also, with God everything is a matter of the heart. What’s the use of not eating steak on Friday or Good Friday or any other day of abstention if I have fish and salad? I’m still eating a pretty darn good meal.

The reason to abstain from meat was to devote the day and our thoughts to God. You know, prayer and fasting.

So I’m pretty sure that if I eat meat on any Friday, Jesus will be able to save me. I don’t think He hung on that cross so I could go to hell because I disobeyed one command.

I mean, are we getting ourselves to heaven or is Jesus getting us there?

FG

Yes, I hear ya. I have not been too pleased with my posts in this thread. It’s not a simple answer.

First of all, my statement was that “ultimately, we don’t know what will send others to hell.” Now, obviously we know that rejection of God, His grace and justice, is what causes condemnation to a man. Mortal sin on our soul is our own choosing to reject God in our lives.

The scenerio given by wannano was very specific to meet the requirements of a mortal sin. And as we’ve pointed out, it’s not only the exterior act of eating meat on a Friday during lent. This hypothetical person was choosing (through the outward act of eating meat on Friday during lent) to separate himself from the good standing he had within the Church of God.

The thing about it, is that it’s a very unlikely scenerio for a man to be devoted to Jesus and His Church, being in good standing and all, only to have such an extreme indifference to a corporal fast!

It’s one thing to struggle to understand that the corporal fast is good, or what Jesus has commanded. Because, in a way, He has not commanded it. But in a way, He has commanded it, indirectly. Fasting is a Holy devotion, which He told the Apostles to practice. He also Taught us the true way to fast. We are to do it in secret, keeping it between the Father and ourselves.

But there is also a corporal fast which can be done as a group. This doesn’t change the essense of how we should keep it, but the fact that the Church has required it does change something about it. In a way, it bring us together, and that I appreciate. But I also admit that I don’t like the fact that it places a potential stumbling block for some people. Yet again, it seems so shallow to imagine a person stumbling in their faith on account of a fast which is intended to draw our focus, as a community, into the sacred mystery of the passion and resurrection of Jesus, in the liturgical season.

So in the scenerio of wannano, the man chose to do what he knew was wrong according to the Church, which he was in good standing with. He then had no remorse. And we were not explained that his reason was a struggle to know if the fast was binding by God, but rather his reason was carnal. He did not want to refrain from eating meat. He wanted the meat. For this reason, I don’t think the fate of the man is good.

As for our eternal assurance…

I believe we can and should know our own condition and relationship with God. This takes devotion and attention to our conscience. We cannot know if we will always remain with Him in the future, and certainly not think no matter what we do, we are assured salvation. We can fall into serious sin, and without remorse and a desire to confess and reconcile ourselves (through faith and grace) and turn back to Him, we are choosing to reject Him and His saving life.

 

[Gorgias]

Tempus Quadragesimale suam indolem paenitentialem retinet. Dies paenitentiae, obligatorie in tota Ecclesia servandi, sunt singulae sextae feriae totius anni et feria quarta Cinerum, vel, pro diversitate Rituum, primus dies Magnae Quadragesimae; eorum substantialis observantia graviter tenet.

Well…there it is. Having done this long enough that I was kindly granted my retirement, if you have a different and better explanation than what I have related, as I would have said to my own students: I am all ears to hear it. How, precisely, is a theologian to read and interpret the above passage?

I think we’re saying substantially the same thing here – so, whether you quote Paenitemini in English or in Latin, we’re on the same page. However, it seems you’re interpreting the OP’s hypothetical situation differently than I am.

The OP, in his scenario, says that the hypothetical person knows that he is not to eat meat on Good Friday. But, being tempted to have a steak, the OP says, he willfully decides to go ahead and eat one.

The question at hand is precisely the one we have both commented on: what is it that he has willfully chosen? Given the OP’s assertion that it’s not just “I want a steak”, but rather, “I know I cannot have one, but I’m going to eat one anyway,” I don’t think that it’s unreasonable to suggest that he has willfully chosen to disobey the obligation to abstain on Good Friday. If you would call that “substantial observation” of the obligation to abstain, then that’s an interesting conclusion.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Yes, I hear ya. I have not been too pleased with my posts in this thread. It’s not a simple answer.

First of all, my statement was that “ultimately, we don’t know what will send others to hell.” Now, obviously we know that rejection of God, His grace and justice, is what causes condemnation to a man. Mortal sin on our soul is our own choosing to reject God in our lives.

Hi RC
What a well thought out response. Now I’ll give you my view and maybe we could meet somewhere between you and me.
Part of my problem here is that the answer SHOULD be simple. If we don’t know what will send one to hell, how could we be sure WE’RE not going? I’d like to be sure. It seems to me that the bible gives me that assurance. John 3:16 says that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

So I take from this that if I believe in Jesus I can have everlasting life. But, of course, what does believe mean? Even satan believed in Jesus and yet he is surely not saved.
So believe in the Greek, the language of the N.T., means that we are to believe not only with our minds but with our heart. This implies that we are to agree with Jesus, to follow Him, to emulate Him.

Now, you say and correctly so, that rejection of God and His justice and grace is what would cause condemnation. And mortal sin on our soul is our own choosing to reject God. But does mortal sin represent choosing to reject God? Did the man eat the steak because he sinned or because he rejected God? is not obeying God the same as rejecting Him? If eating that steak was rejecting God, then we reject God every time we sin! The man in the scenario did not say: Okay God. I’m turning away from you - I don’t want to serve you anymore. Instead it was more along the lines of: I know this is wrong (just as ALL sin is wrong) but, boy,k that steak looks good and I think I’m going to eat it.
See? Can you see the difference?

I think part of the problem is giving sins a name; like for instance “mortal sin.” The RCC explains sin this way, but in the end it makes little sense. To God ALL SIN is sin. To us some are smaller and some are bigger. I’d rather that you lied to me than that you killed me - but to God, who is a perfect being, any sin is sin. So what is to save us from His wrath? John 3:16 Whosoever BELIEVETH in His Son shall not perish. It’s Jesus who is saving us - not ourselves - not if we ate that steak or not.

The scenerio given by wannano was very specific to meet the requirements of a mortal sin. And as we’ve pointed out, it’s not only the exterior act of eating meat on a Friday during lent. This hypothetical person was choosing (through the outward act of eating meat on Friday during lent) to separate himself from the good standing he had within the Church of God.

The thing about it, is that it’s a very unlikely scenerio for a man to be devoted to Jesus and His Church, being in good standing and all, only to have such an extreme indifference to a corporal fast!

We agree a little. Sin is not an exterior matter but a matter of the heart. I don’t think the man was choosing to separate himself from God, I think he just wanted to eat that steak.
Why is that different than lying, or desiring something of my neighbor’s? I understand that if you steal $20 it’s a venial sin, but if you steal $a million then it’s a mortal sin. Again, to God you have stolen and broken the 7th commandment. So if I die I go to hell? Is Jesus not able to keep me? I DO have to be sorry and confess my sin- that goes without saying. But God knows if I am sorry even BEFORE I get to confession. Isn’t it making life more abundant, as Jesus said he would, if I could depend on him in this way?

ONE

 

[frangiuliano115]

TO RC

TWO

It’s one thing to struggle to understand that the corporal fast is good, or what Jesus has commanded. Because, in a way, He has not commanded it. But in a way, He has commanded it, indirectly. Fasting is a Holy devotion, which He told the Apostles to practice. He also Taught us the true way to fast. We are to do it in secret, keeping it between the Father and ourselves.

But there is also a corporal fast which can be done as a group. This doesn’t change the essense of how we should keep it, but the fact that the Church has required it does change something about it. In a way, it bring us together, and that I appreciate. But I also admit that I don’t like the fact that it places a potential stumbling block for some people. Yet again, it seems so shallow to imagine a person stumbling in their faith on account of a fast which is intended to draw our focus, as a community, into the sacred mystery of the passion and resurrection of Jesus, in the liturgical season.

Here we agree totally. Fasting is good if done for the right reason. To bring one closer to God. If I do it just because the church tells me to, how does it bring me closer to God? It becomes a stumbling block - this is true. Now, I do agree that one should follow the rules of their church - this is not what I’m saying. But it should not be so that if I do not follow that church-made rule I should go to HELL! Do you not think that is a bit extreme?
Plus, I still say it’s up to God to say how one gets to hell, not up to a church. The bible tells us how one goes to hell. By NOT believing in the SAVIOR, Jesus the Christ.

So in the scenerio of wannano, the man chose to do what he knew was wrong according to the Church, which he was in good standing with. He then had no remorse. And we were not explained that his reason was a struggle to **know if the fast was binding by God, but rather his reason was carnal. **He did not want to refrain from eating meat. He wanted the meat. For this reason, I don’t think the fate of the man is good.

RC, every sin is carnal. Does that mean we run the risk of ending up in hell if we should die at any moment? Which sin is NOT carnal? I don’t understand this.

As for our eternal assurance…

I believe we can and should know our own condition and relationship with God. This takes devotion and attention to our conscience. We cannot know if we will always remain with Him in the future, and certainly not think no matter what we do, we are assured salvation. We can fall into serious sin, and without remorse and a desire to confess and reconcile ourselves (through faith and grace) and turn back to Him, we are choosing to reject Him and His saving life.

I agree with all except the very last sentence. Because we sin, does not mean we have rejected God. Rejection is a matter of our WILL, not a matter of sinning.

Does this make any sense to you?

FG

 

[rcwitness]

Hi RC
What a well thought out response. Now I’ll give you my view and maybe we could meet somewhere between you and me.
Part of my problem here is that the answer SHOULD be simple. If we don’t know what will send one to hell, how could we be sure WE’RE not going? I’d like to be sure. It seems to me that the bible gives me that assurance. John 3:16

The reason why it is not simple is only for the fact that we are trying to discern Christ’s judgment of the heart, behind their actions. The reason a sin is deadly, is because they know it is wrong and do not have remorse for doing it. In a given situation, especially this hypothetical one about breaking a fast, we have to assume the man knew it is wrong, did it because of carnal desire, and then had no remorse for doing so!!! That’s a very strange thing for a “good standing” member of the Church, no???

So I take from this that if I believe in Jesus I can have everlasting life. But, of course, what does believe mean? Even satan believed in Jesus and yet he is surely not saved.
So believe means that we are to believe not only with our minds but with our heart.

Yep… “believe in me” does not mean merely agreeing with, or knowledge of something. It means following, obeying and trusting in the Charity given to us from above.

Now, you say and correctly so, that rejection of God and His justice and grace is what would cause condemnation. And mortal sin on our soul is our own choosing to reject God. But does mortal sin represent choosing to reject God? Did the man eat the steak because he sinned or because he rejected God? is not obeying God the same as rejecting Him?

I used a passage from St Paul to Timothy earlier that I’ve always found significant:

Command this, so that they may be without reproach.*If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

By refusing to do what the faith compels us to do is a direct rejection of the faith. He is not an unbeliever, though. He is a believer who rejects what the faith is leading him to do.

I think part of the problem is giving sins a name; like for instance “mortal sin.” The RCC explains sin this way, but in the end it makes little sense. To God ALL SIN is sin. To us some are smaller and some are bigger. I’d rather that you lied to me than that you killed me - but to God, who is a perfect being, any sin is sin. So what is to save us from His wrath? John 3:16 Whosoever BELIEVETH in His Son shall not perish. It’s Jesus who is saving us - not ourselves - not if we ate that steak or not.

1 John 5

“If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God*will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.17All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.”

We agree a little. Sin is not an exterior matter but a matter of the heart. I don’t think the man was choosing to separate himself from God, I think he just wanted to eat that steak.
Why is that different than lying, or desiring something of my neighbor’s? I understand that if you steal $20 it’s a venial sin, but if you steal $a million then it’s a mortal sin. Again, to God you have stolen and broken the 7th commandment. So if I die I go to hell? Is Jesus not able to keep me? I DO have to be sorry and confess my sin- that goes without saying. But God knows if I am sorry even BEFORE I get to confession. Isn’t it making life more abundant, as Jesus said he would, if I could depend on him in this way?

I don’t know how you come to a conclusion that stealing $20 is not Mortal, but $1,000,000 is? We have been telling you that it’s about knowing what is wrong, doing it, and having no remorse unto the end. If we have remorse and our desire/intention is to confess, then we are turning away from death and back to Him.

Here we agree totally. Fasting is good if done for the right reason. To bring one closer to God. If I do it just because the church tells me to, how does it bring me closer to God? It becomes a stumbling block - this is true. Now, I do agree that one should follow the rules of their church - this is not what I’m saying. But it should not be so that if I do not follow that church-made rule I should go to HELL! Do you not think that is a bit extreme?
Plus, I still say it’s up to God to say how one gets to hell, not up to a church. The bible tells us how one goes to hell. By NOT believing in the SAVIOR, Jesus the Christ.

I know you want to simplify the bible, and reduce condemnation to “not believing in the savior”. But when we apply that faith to real situations in real life, we see there is a real direction to take. It’s not Faith Alone.

RC, every sin is carnal. Does that mean we run the risk of ending up in hell if we should die at any moment? Which sin is NOT carnal? I don’t understand this.
I agree with all except the very last sentence. Because we sin, does not mean we have rejected God. Rejection is a matter of our WILL, not a matter of sinning.

God is Spirit. If we choose the carnal, we reject the Spirit. Some rejection is in part, while some is wholly rejecting Him. Some people have ruined their consciences, while others have damaged.
Some sin puts damage into our relationship with Jesus, while some sin destroys our relationship.
Always remember that sin which leads to death is sin we have not turned from, and have basically called good. This is when our conscience has been seared to the point that it no longer leads to the conviction the Spirit has delivered to us.

 

[JimmyDFG]

You know everything PJM.
Hell is our choice.
Could you please explain to me WHY God made hell?
He knew some of us would end up there?
I thought He was a good God?
And a powerful one too?
He couldn’t send us someplace a little nicer?
Maybe an eternal purgatory…
Also, while you’re at it, could you please show me where in the bible I could find the word “hell”?
You know HELL, not sheol, hades or gehenna.

Thanks for your time.

I think you meant “church.”

Do you know the difference? I think it’s important.
Please find out.

AMEN!

You say “AMEN” in the above state. But yet you criticize someone on their typo of “Church”… Just saying

 

[Wannano]

The reason why it is not simple is only for the fact that we are trying to discern Christ’s judgment of the heart, behind their actions. The reason a sin is deadly, is because they know it is wrong and do not have remorse for doing it. In a given situation, especially this hypothetical one about breaking a fast, we have to assume the man knew it is wrong, did it because of carnal desire, and then had no remorse for doing so!!! That’s a very strange thing for a “good standing” member of the Church, no???

Since I wrote the scenario I feel I should point out that in the op the man just finished eating his steak and remorse had not yet kicked in. My personal experience unfortunately with sin is that remorse is not always immediate. Can you identify with me on that?

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Hi
Thanks for your reply. I’m very confused.
Don Ruggero’s reply and his post on no. 64 says I would not go to hell because God is not that strict. You say I would. I’m glad YOU’RE not God!

Regarding the word Church:
Here is what youi had posted originally:

Originally Posted by Confiteor Deo View Post
Yes, he would have condemned himself to Hell because of his disobedience to the Church.

So now I’m confused even more. You say that you really did mean Church.
So, the disobedience is not to the church down in Rome, the magesterum, but the disobedience is to the Church, the Body of Christ. Is this correct?

I do understand what you say regarding Jesus giving power to the Apostles and so also to the church. With a small c.

But if the church (small c) could change its mind about something - how could I be sure it’s not going to change its mind about something else? And how could I trust that I’m being told the truth at any given time and about any given matter?

To me this seems to be a big problem. Which is why I like to stay with the Laws God gave. The moral Laws that is. The ceremonial and civil laws have been abolished.

I appreciate your reply.

It is a grave matter for a Catholic to not obey the precepts of the Church concerning fasts & abstinence. Whether this would be a mortal sin for the transgressor would require him to have full consent and full knowledge of the gravity of the sin, which is what I assume Father meant in his post.

Church with a lowercase “c” is for church buildings. Fasting & abstinence are disciplines which can change since it is not divine revelation but is a command from the Church to the faithful for their spiritual welfare. The Church’s teaching that murder is a mortal sin is not a discipline but is part of divine revelation, so the Church doesn’t have the power to change it. It is divine law for us to obey the Church’s disciplines, but the Church’s disciplines are not divine law.

 

[rcwitness]

Since I wrote the scenario I feel I should point out that in the op the man just finished eating his steak and remorse had not yet kicked in. My personal experience unfortunately with sin is that remorse is not always immediate. Can you identify with me on that?

Yes and no.

I have committed grave sins, yet contained a remorse and sorrow which I believe kept me from being lost to Him. It is faint indeed, yet I desired reconciliation. I was weak, but had love. I did not have enough love to avoid the sin altogether, but enough to bring me back.

What would have happened to Peter after his denial of the Lord, before his repentence? Or when Paul found him “standing condemned”?

We believe the Lord knows our hearts. We must be humble, so very thankful, pray, fast and turn to him daily.

wannano, do you believe in the power of fasting? What do you think about it?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I think we’re saying substantially the same thing here – so, whether you quote Paenitemini in English or in Latin, we’re on the same page. However, it seems you’re interpreting the OP’s hypothetical situation differently than I am.

The OP, in his scenario, says that the hypothetical person knows that he is not to eat meat on Good Friday. But, being tempted to have a steak, the OP says, he willfully decides to go ahead and eat one.

The question at hand is precisely the one we have both commented on: what is it that he has willfully chosen? Given the OP’s assertion that it’s not just “I want a steak”, but rather, “I know I cannot have one, but I’m going to eat one anyway,” I don’t think that it’s unreasonable to suggest that he has willfully chosen to disobey the obligation to abstain on Good Friday. If you would call that “substantial observation” of the obligation to abstain, then that’s an interesting conclusion.

No. We are not saying the same thing. Nor are we seeing the scenario in the same way, given the specific parameter of the original poster, the answer to which is in the text.

Here again is the text.
Tempus Quadragesimale suam indolem paenitentialem retinet. Dies paenitentiae, obligatorie in tota Ecclesia servandi, sunt singulae sextae feriae totius anni et feria quarta Cinerum, vel, pro diversitate Rituum, primus dies Magnae Quadragesimae; eorum substantialis observantia graviter tenet.
When there is a dispute as to the meaning of a text’s words, one reverts to the editio typica since that is the definitive text from which one must work – and not a translation. That principle is basic to a first year class in theological methodology…just as it is from theological methodology principles that one would have to educe through textual exegesis that the man has a grave obligation relative to this specific meal.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

It is a grave matter for a Catholic to not obey the precepts of the Church concerning fasts & abstinence. Whether this would be a mortal sin for the transgressor would require him to have full consent and full knowledge of the gravity of the sin, which is what I assume Father meant in his post.

What you have written is not what I said and not expressive of my thought. The pope himself declared in what way his legislation is binding and His Holiness is who I agree with. It is there in the text, in his own formulation. The answer does not simply rest with knowledge and consent – there is another qualifier that the pope delineated and which I already explained.